Top Video Game Franchise Tournament - Round 2 - Metroid/Metal Gear Divisions

[GLASSJAW]

I remember when I was super young I used to get up extra early on saturday morning and play Donkey Kong Country for hours on end. sometimes I would even just sit there and listen to the music.

lady killer from the start

[uber_pwnzor]

Quake did. SC2 just made it a bit less nerdy and made it more international. But Quake was way ahead of it. In fact, some SC2 player _just_ passed a Quake player for all time earnings, and I'm sure that Quake player hasn't touched a game in almost half a decade.

Yeah, I know, even CS was big before Broodwar, still, Starcraft made e-sports into a big thing, it was the first time e-sports made it to the mainstream. For example, Swedish National TV broadcasts some SC2 tournaments... That never happened with Quake.

[VICanucksfan5551]

You can't vote based on which has the games that are the most impressive in 2013.

For the older games, you have to factor in what their impact was when they were modern games.

For games like doom and Red Baron, they were crazy in the 80s because that was what technology allowed.

The games today are well crafted, but most piggyback on each other's game engines. I've never played it, but I think that is what makes games like Minecraft stand out. It might not look good, but there is so much playability.

I'm not talking about technically impressive. Older games like, say, Super Mario World aren't technically impressive anymore, but they hold up very well today and are still a ton of fun to play. Others like Doom may have been the pinnacle of the genre at the time, but you're not going to go back and replay them for dozens of hours a week because of the strides that have been made since then.

[Master Mind]

It was mostly a comment about the polls as a whole. I don't think the first two Doom games really hold up compared to modern shooters, though. ME2 and 3 destroy them on the basis of being shooters alone, and the shooting gameplay wasn't even the main draw of Mass Effect.

I've noticed that too on some polls, and I've actually been surprised by some of the results. I thought the new franchises would've won the majority of polls.

[Master Mind]

I'm not talking about technically impressive. Older games like, say, Super Mario World aren't technically impressive anymore, but they hold up very well today and are still a ton of fun to play. Others like Doom may have been the pinnacle of the genre at the time, but you're not going to go back and replay them for dozens of hours a week because of the strides that have been made since then.

That differs from person to person. I recently played the original Doom, and enjoyed it much more than most of today's shooters.

[g_bassi13]

It was mostly a comment about the polls as a whole. I don't think the first two Doom games really hold up compared to modern shooters, though. ME2 and 3 destroy them on the basis of being shooters alone, and the shooting gameplay wasn't even the main draw of Mass Effect.

Mass Effect 3 doesn't destroy anything, lol. Except maybe itself and it's series. And while Mass Effect 2 was a fantastic game, the shooting mechanics were not particularly fantastic. They improve over the first game's, but there are tactical shooters that do it better.

Mass Effect 3 ends up being more of a corridor shooter than DOOM ever was. Instead of chasing after alien/monsters in an open environment, you hide behind cover as they all just walk into your cross hairs. Certain levels of ME3 were different and require more movement, but it's ultimately nothing too dynamic. Or difficult. And on top of everything it's a bull game.

[VICanucksfan5551]

Mass Effect 3 doesn't destroy anything, lol. Except maybe itself and it's series. And while Mass Effect 2 was a fantastic game, the shooting mechanics were not particularly fantastic. They improve over the first game's, but there are tactical shooters that do it better.

Mass Effect 3 ends up being more of a corridor shooter than DOOM ever was. Instead of chasing after alien/monsters in an open environment, you hide behind cover as they all just walk into your cross hairs. Certain levels of ME3 were different and require more movement, but it's ultimately nothing too dynamic. Or difficult. And on top of everything it's a bull game.

In terms of combat mechanics, I definitely preferred ME3 to 2 (although 2 was definitely a better game overall). I don't get how you could think that 3 is particularly static by comparison. I found myself sprinting around a lot more than I did in 2, and on multiplayer staying still behind cover is about the worst thing you can do with all of the enemies rushing you. It's also not any less of a challenge unless you're on a hand-holding difficulty setting. Some parts are particularly brutal on the higher difficulties (eg. Grissom Academy).

ME is definitely not the best in terms of tactical shooters (as I said, that's not even what really shines in the games), but it's certainly better in that respect than outdated games like the first two Dooms.

[g_bassi13]

In terms of combat mechanics, I definitely preferred ME3 to 2 (although 2 was definitely a better game overall). I don't get how you could think that 3 is particularly static by comparison. I found myself sprinting around a lot more than I did in 2, and on multiplayer staying still behind cover is about the worst thing you can do with all of the enemies rushing you. It's also not any less of a challenge unless you're on a hand-holding difficulty setting. Some parts are particularly brutal on the higher difficulties (eg. Grissom Academy).

ME is definitely not the best in terms of tactical shooters (as I said, that's not even what really shines in the games), but it's certainly better in that respect than outdated games like the first two Dooms.

If you're talking story wise, the first two games deliver in the biggest way. The third one was a giant side show in comparison. It's a straightforward linear shooter like all the games it claims not to be like. With a worse story.

As for the mechanics, again, on the normal difficulty the game sets you up with, it was simple I did not die once in the game, if remember correctly. It was very straightforward, and I breezed through the whole thing. When they lock you in a room, those are the moments when you start to have to move (though again, I found the less I tried to move, the easier it was.) The worst though was when you had to begin you A to B journey, because then the corridor shooting began.

Maybe the enhanced difficulty settings changed the game, and the shooting was no longer simple, but this crap doesn't deserve a second playthrough.

I mean yeah, Doom was largely based off of the success of Wolfenstein, but elements of it's level design were just brilliant. John Romero is a giant douche that became really full of himself after a while, but he helped do some great stuff with that game.

There are a bunch of shooters that I would load up and play instead of Doom in the period since it's release, sure, but one of them is not Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect 2 I would have chose to play any day over Doom, if only Mass Effect 3 had never existed.

[VICanucksfan5551]

If you're talking story wise, the first two games deliver in the biggest way. The third one was a giant side show in comparison. It's a straightforward linear shooter like all the games it claims not to be like. With a worse story.

As for the mechanics, again, on the normal difficulty the game sets you up with, it was simple I did not die once in the game, if remember correctly. It was very straightforward, and I breezed through the whole thing. When they lock you in a room, those are the moments when you start to have to move (though again, I found the less I tried to move, the easier it was.) The worst though was when you had to begin you A to B journey, because then the corridor shooting began.

Maybe the enhanced difficulty settings changed the game, and the shooting was no longer simple, but this crap doesn't deserve a second playthrough.

I mean yeah, Doom was largely based off of the success of Wolfenstein, but elements of it's level design were just brilliant. John Romero is a giant douche that became really full of himself after a while, but he helped do some great stuff with that game.

There are a bunch of shooters that I would load up and play instead of Doom in the period since it's release, sure, but one of them is not Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect 2 I would have chose to play any day over Doom, if only Mass Effect 3 had never existed.

I'm thinking more character development and dialogue options than the overarching story. In that respect, Mass Effect 3 was still very good and the story itself didn't really fall apart until the last little stretch (and still to a much lesser degree than the vitriol thrown at it would have you believe).

Yeah, you have to play at a higher difficulty setting than that (veteran at the very least). At the highest difficulty (insanity), the game becomes ridiculously hard at points and a real test of skill.

Oh, I agree that Doom and Doom II were among the best games in its genre at the time. I just don't think it holds up in the same way that other old games manage to despite technological improvements.

[g_bassi13]

I'm thinking more character development and dialogue options than the overarching story. In that respect, Mass Effect 3 was still very good and the story itself didn't really fall apart until the last little stretch (and still to a much lesser degree than the vitriol thrown at it would have you believe).

Yeah, you have to play at a higher difficulty setting than that (veteran at the very least). At the highest difficulty (insanity), the game becomes ridiculously hard at points and a real test of skill.

Oh, I agree that Doom and Doom II were among the best games in its genre at the time. I just don't think it holds up in the same way that other old games manage to despite technological improvements.

I would argue the character development is great in Mass Effect 2, and their stories are what carry that game. The problem is that it becomes extremely fragmented in Mass Effect 3, unless you entered it in a very specific manner. In Mass Effect 2 you follow characters, who's fate, loyalty, and reactions to the events around them rely on what decisions your main character makes. There are many states of mind to enter with. Mass Effect 3 chucks these out the window and presents this blank slate, which is very jarring when you have people flip around and act radically differently then when you last left them.

This goes for the overarching story to, where the game does not care what your previous actions were. You show up, and it presents this story as is, which fits only a specific previous playthrough.

And to top everything, the story of the game was extremely narrow-minded for the large part, ignoring many things that had gone on in the past. It's just poorly told. There are a couple of moments that shine through very well, but the rest is superficial fluff. That's what the game is full of. It's a really poorly told story that relies on shock over substance. The horrible ending is a continuation of the lazy gloss overs the game was already committing (Though the ending was by far the worst).

Mass Effect 1 and 2 are fantastic games, but considering their reliance on Mass Effect 3 as a direct bookend to their series, I would say the series as a whole does not work. And it doesn't deserve to beat Doom.

Nostalgic lensing is relevant in a large sense, because it speaks volumes about the impact that the game had on the future of the genre it was based in, and the quality of the experience it offered at the time. 20 years from now, most people will have no idea what the hell Mass Effect was.

[VICanucksfan5551]

I would argue the character development is great in Mass Effect 2, and their stories are what carry that game. The problem is that it becomes extremely fragmented in Mass Effect 3, unless you entered it in a very specific manner. In Mass Effect 2 you follow characters, who's fate, loyalty, and reactions to the events around them rely on what decisions your main character makes. There are many states of mind to enter with. Mass Effect 3 chucks these out the window and presents this blank slate, which is very jarring when you have people flip around and act radically differently then when you last left them.

This goes for the overarching story to, where the game does not care what your previous actions were. You show up, and it presents this story as is, which fits only a specific previous playthrough.

And to top everything, the story of the game was extremely narrow-minded for the large part, ignoring many things that had gone on in the past. It's just poorly told. There are a couple of moments that shine through very well, but the rest is superficial fluff. That's what the game is full of. It's a really poorly told story that relies on shock over substance. The horrible ending is a continuation of the lazy gloss overs the game was already committing (Though the ending was by far the worst).

Mass Effect 1 and 2 are fantastic games, but considering their reliance on Mass Effect 3 as a direct bookend to their series, I would say the series as a whole does not work. And it doesn't deserve to beat Doom.

Nostalgic lensing is relevant in a large sense, because it speaks volumes about the impact that the game had on the future of the genre it was based in, and the quality of the experience it offered at the time. 20 years from now, most people will have no idea what the hell Mass Effect was.

That's exactly why I think ME2 was the best of the series. The overarching story was rather vanilla, but it was composed of many little narratives pertaining to specific characters that worked so wonderfully well. The main plot kind of took a backseat to that. I don't know what choices you made that were different than mine, but in ME 3, the characters treated me entirely appropriately given what had happened in ME 2.

It was exactly the same in the previous two games. How different could the overarching stories be in ME 1 and 2? Your actions affected the ride to the destination, but not the destination itself. Maybe what I was expecting was different for me because I played the whole trilogy through once all three games were released and I wasn't swayed by preconceived notions built on things Bioware had said between the second and third game.

I don't really see how the story was told clumsily as you said. It wasn't perfect, but I don't see how it was that much weaker than the previous two games. For example, I thought everything pertaining to Rannoch and Tuchanka was amazingly well done and the culmination of three games' worth of buildup and choices.

I don't get this point. Do people think less of Godfather 1 and 2 because of their opinion of three as a bookend? That doesn't seem to be the sentiment I generally hear.

It's impossible to say for sure now, but I'm willing to bet that you're wrong on this point. People absolutely will remember ME 20 years from now.

[g_bassi13]

That's exactly why I think ME2 was the best of the series. The overarching story was rather vanilla, but it was composed of many little narratives pertaining to specific characters that worked so wonderfully well. The main plot kind of took a backseat to that. I don't know what choices you made that were different than mine, but in ME 3, the characters treated me entirely appropriately given what had happened in ME 2.

It was exactly the same in the previous two games. How different could the overarching stories be in ME 1 and 2? Your actions affected the ride to the destination, but not the destination itself. Maybe what I was expecting was different for me because I played the whole trilogy through once all three games were released and I wasn't swayed by preconceived notions built on things Bioware had said between the second and third game.

I don't really see how the story was told clumsily as you said. It wasn't perfect, but I don't see how it was that much weaker than the previous two games. For example, I thought everything pertaining to Rannoch and Tuchanka was amazingly well done and the culmination of three games' worth of buildup and choices.

I don't get this point. Do people think less of Godfather 1 and 2 because of their opinion of three as a bookend? That doesn't seem to be the sentiment I generally hear.

It's impossible to say for sure now, but I'm willing to bet that you're wrong on this point. People absolutely will remember ME 20 years from now.

The thing about it being a bookend is that everything tied into the third game. Every choice you made, every thing you did was done so with a promise of it being resolved in a meaningful way in the third game. What the third did way toss away the individuality of those things, and presented this story with a one track mind.

So when they gave this story, that continued to resolve itself in either linearity, or ultimate inconsequence. If you played the series, and were anticipating the third game, you'd have a better sense of the scope that was promised. What was delivered was short of that, by a large extent.

And it's not as if it's expecting too much to have this game present so many different angles and outcomes. Games have done it in an honest sense, like the Witcher 2. So it's not that it can't be done. It's just that Bioware were lazy, and rushed the game out, without properly fleshing it out.

I can't comment anymore on what I hated about each individual aspect, because it's been so long, and I stopped giving a crap about how exactly it was that the game panned out. But find the Mass Effect 3 thread in the gaming section and you'll see what I mean. At best, it's a decent game that's heavily flawed in so many different ways. But as you can tell, the way I saw it was that it was utter crap.

[VICanucksfan5551]

The thing about it being a bookend is that everything tied into the third game. Every choice you made, every thing you did was done so with a promise of it being resolved in a meaningful way in the third game. What the third did way toss away the individuality of those things, and presented this story with a one track mind.

So when they gave this story, that continued to resolve itself in either linearity, or ultimate inconsequence. If you played the series, and were anticipating the third game, you'd have a better sense of the scope that was promised. What was delivered was short of that, by a large extent.

And it's not as if it's expecting too much to have this game present so many different angles and outcomes. Games have done it in an honest sense, like the Witcher 2. So it's not that it can't be done. It's just that Bioware were lazy, and rushed the game out, without properly fleshing it out.

I can't comment anymore on what I hated about each individual aspect, because it's been so long, and I stopped giving a crap about how exactly it was that the game panned out. But find the Mass Effect 3 thread in the gaming section and you'll see what I mean. At best, it's a decent game that's heavily flawed in so many different ways. But as you can tell, the way I saw it was that it was utter crap.

Maybe it was because I cared more about the characters than I did the overarching story, but I wasn't bothered nearly as much about the flaws that seem to be eating at you so much. I just saw the story as a backdrop to flesh out the fantastic characters and rich universe. Because I'd already heard the criticisms about your choices not mattering to the finale that I didn't really expect them to and enjoyed the ride. I've played through the series twice now and enjoyed it just as much each time. For a series as extensive as ME is, that's a hell of an accomplishment in my eyes.